Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Onepeat? Ok, I get the guy's point. But 10K? Dude, I can think of a lot better uses for that money.

And sorry, LSU fans, but just like we had to share in '97 with Nebraska, the 2003 National Title was split. SC was #1 in BOTH polls at the end of the regular season. Just because the I'veGotASlideRuleUpMyAssAndNeverGotLaidinCollege Computer poll had them somewhere behind Bowling Green doesn't negate their title.

P.S. Dear LSU fan, don't be so upset by that splash of cold water that you ignore our call above for the M Zone All-Hotness Team. We've heard co-eds in Baton Rouge are very cute. We here at the M Zone would hate for the truth to come between us and everybody's purient interests.

13 comments:

$10,000 is just crazy. Not Marcus Vick/Maurice Clarett crazy but still crazy.

There are definitely better uses for that money. Like rebuilding New Orleans so Mardi Gras can be enjoyed again. I was going to suggest that a weekend with some high-end prostitutes and lots of tequila would more effectively take the sting off being the forgotten national champion than some silly billboard, but I think Mardi Gras would benefit more people.

I certainly have no love for Southern Cal—they’ve beaten Michigan too many times for my taste and I was as sick as anyone at hearing about how they were the greatest team ever—but the anti-Trojan backlash is misdirected and should be focused on the sports media. If anything, fans everywhere should spam the Worldwide Leader with e-mails telling them to quit the marketing business and start doing journalism.

Actually, LSU never won a title three years ago. To admit that they did would be to admit that the Coaches' Poll has any standing whatsoever in the college football universe, and we cannot do that for obvious reasons.

Therefore, no team that won ONLY the caoches poll in a given year was a national champion. Whoever won the AP poll in that same year was. So USC had a nice two-peat going.

I didn't even get the point the guy was trying to make until reading the comments here. What an idiot. You won a national title (according to everyone but The King). Enjoy that. Is your self-image so damaged that you have to have it validated by the blowhards on ESPN who have no persepctive on the past or the future anyway?

Jackass, since 1998, the BCS is the only name in national championships. That is why the BCS trophy is given before the votes of the coaches and press. Read the BCS CONTRACT. It expressly states that the top 2 teams based on a formula taking in objective and subjective components will play in the national championship game. USC agreed to that contract, as well as all other BCS teams.

The BCS champion is the champion. BCS is the [i]genus[/i] and the AP and Coaches votes are the [i]species[/i]. [u]Both the AP and Coaches polls are subsumed by the BCS.[/u] The BCS is correctly viewed as the plumbline of champions. It is the best thing we have outside of a playoff. That is why there is a game called the BCS National Championship Game. It is the in essence the same as the Final Four national championship game.

Even in college sports that have playoffs, there is still a final Coaches and AP poll. The coaches and media members are free to vote anyone they choose as the champion. That they have always voted the champion as their champ is besides the point. It shows only consistency for those voters.

That was why the 2003 vote of USC #1 by the AP made no sense. They voted a team that obviously did not deserve to even make the championship game as their #1. You will see below why USC had no meritorious argument for even [i]belonging[/i] in the national championship game.

Now I ask this question, why are the votes of some 40 out of 65 AP voters more important than the outcome of the national championship game? What would the outcry be if the same happened in basketball? You will say, of course, that basketball has a playoff. But I say that college already does since our season is so much shorter. Look at the entire season as a playoff.

My view, the correct view, was the view held by everyone until the AP/media convinced you of irrational nonsense in order to promp up USC, one of the media darlings. Remember, the correct view is BCS genus, AP / Coaches species.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/

" The Bowl Championship Series was established before the 1998 season to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old. The BCS has quickly become a showcase for the sport, matching the best teams at the end of the season. "

And that is part of the contract that all BCS schools sign. USC signed it. LSU signed it. OU signed it.

The first thing USC fans will do is link a sidepage of the site, one written by someone who is not associated with the BCS in anyway other than as its secondary webpage editor, that says there is a split title between the AP and Coaches.

Again, this view of splitting is a non sequiter, as the BCS is the determinant and legitimate source of national champions, and not the vote of Coaches and AP.

Now on to the argument of merit. You shall see below that USC and backers have no rational way to defend its ranking of #1 in the AP.

[b]DETERMINING THE RELATIVE STRENGTH OF TEAMS THAT DO NOT PLAY EACH OTHER[/b]

IF TWO TEAMS DONT PLAY EACH OTHER, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH TEAM IS BETTER? WE HAVE TO DO THIS ALL THE TIME. FOR INSTANCE, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT LSU WAS BETTER THAN BOISE STATE LAST YEAR IF THEY HAD THE SAME RECORD? OR GEORGIA BETTER THAN TCU?

OF COURSE, WE CAN'T KNOW WITH ANY EMPIRICAL CERTAINTITY BECAUSE TO GET THAT CERTAINTITY WE WOULD NEED THE TWO TEAMS TO PLAY.

HOWEVER, WE MAKE SUCH SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS ALL THE TIME. A TEAM THAT FINISHES 10-1 IN THE SEC IS ALMOST ALWAYS THOUGHT OF AS A MUCH, MUCH, MUCH STRONGER TEAM THAN A CUSA TEAM THAT FINISHES 10-1.

FOR INSTANCE, WHY IN 1998 WHEN TENNESSEE WAS 12-0 THOUGHT OF AS A MUCH BETTER TEAM THAN TULANE, A TEAM THAT ALSO FINISHED 12-0?

WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF JUDGMENT SYSTEM TO ON WHICH TO BASE THESE DETERMINATIONS OR ELSE WE HAVE NO NEED TO DIVIDE TEAMS INTO CONFERENCES OR EVEN DIVISIONS (DIV IAA, ETC.).

THIS IS HOW I COMPARE/RANK TEAMS IF THEY DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER. NUMBERED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.1. W/L RECORD2. STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE3. MARGIN OF VICTORY4. NUMBER OF RANKED TEAMS PLAYED (SIMILAR, BUT EXACTLY THE SAME AS SOS BECAUSE TO BE THE BEST YOU HAVE TO BEAT THE BEST).5. RESULTS AGAINST COMMON OPPONENTS IF ANY6. HOW TEAMS DID ON THE ROAD.7. STRENGTH OF DEFENSE. 8. TALENT AND COACHING

IT'S INTERESTING THAT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO 2003, LSU WAS AHEAD OF USC IN EACH OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.

[b]FACT, FICTION, AND OPINION:[/b]

FACT: LSU HAD A TOUGHER STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE THAN USCFACT: LSU HAD A LARGER MARGIN OF VICTORY THAN USCFACT: LSU PLAYED FIVE TIMES THE NUMBER OF RANKED TEAMS DURING THE REGULAR SEASON THAN USC.FACT: LSU'S ONLY LOSS WAS TO A RANKED TEAM. USC'S ONLY LOSS WAS TO UNRANKED, SIX LOSS CAL.FACT: LSU HAD BETTER RESULTS AGAINST COMMON OPPONENTS, ARIZONA AND AUBURN, THAN USC.FACT: COMMON OPPONENTS COACHES AND PLAYERS (ARIZONA AND AUBURN AGAIN) SAID AFTER PLAYING BOTH TEAMS THAT LSU WAS BETTER. SOURCE: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3475396/FACT: LSU HAD THE #1 DEFENSE IN THE NATION. USC HAD THE 30TH, INCLUDING THE 110TH RATED PASS DEFENSE.FACT: LSU HAD MORE WINS THAN USC.FACT: LSU WON TWO CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. USC WON ZERO. ITS BOWL WIN WAS OVER #6.FACT: LSU PLAYED A PLAYOFF. LSU'S LAST FOUR GAMES WERE AGAINST #13, #27, #5, AND #3. LSU WON BY AN AVERAGE OF OVER 15 AGAINST EACH.FACT: USC PLAYED NOTHING RESEMBLING A PLAYOFF. IT FINISHED THE SEASON BY PLAYING 3 UNRANKED TEAMS, AND THEN AN OVERRATED MICHIGAN TEAM THAT LOST 3 GAMES, INCLUDING ONE TO AN UNRANKED TEAM.FACT: LSU PLAYED RANKED TEAMS ON THE ROAD.FACT: USC PLAYED ZERO RANKED TEAMS ON THE ROAD. CONSIDERING HOW IT DID AGAINST UNRANKED CAL ON THE ROAD, A LOSS, WE MIGHT HAVE SEEN SOME DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHO DESERVED TO BE IN THE SUGAR IN OU'S STEAD. FACT: LSU has 8 more players from 2003 than USC currently playing in the NFL

WITH ALL THE FACTS I THROW OUT HERE, ISN'T IT ODD THAT USC FANS NEVER REBUTE THEM? YOU WOULD THINK SOME GENIUS USC FANS (ISN'T USC SUPPOSED TO BE A GOOD SCHOOL? OR IS IT ONE OF THOSE PAY 30 GRAND A YEAR AND GET B'S TYPE SCHOOL?) WOULD MAKE SOMETHING OF AN ARGUMENT.

[u]BUT THERE IS NONE.[/u]

SURE, SOME OF YOU WILL SAY THAT THE USC FANS JUST AREN'T OBSESSIVE LIKE I AM. OTHERS WILL SAY USC FANS SIMPLY DON'T CARE BECAUSE THEY'VE WON MANY NATIONAL TITLES WHILE LSU HAS ONLY WON 2 IN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS.

REMEMBER, THOUGH, USC HASN'T WON A NATIONAL TITLE SINCE 78.

REMEMBER, USC FANS HAVE TRIED TO ARGUE WITH ME IN THE PAST.

REMEMBER, THE INTERNET BRINGS OUT PRIDE IN PEOPLE. PEOPLE WANT TO ARGUE THEIR CASE UNTIL THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY EMBARRASSED AND HUMILIATED. USC FANS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND BY ME, AND THESE SAME USC FANS THAT CONTINUE TO POST NOW, SUCH AS NYCUSC, PACTENFAN, STR8TEASTCOAST, AENEASTROJAN, ETC., CURRENTLY ABSTAIN FROM THE ARGUMENT ALTOGETHER, NOT BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER CARE BUT BECAUSE I HAVE DESTROYED EACH OF THE ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.

IF USC HAD A CASE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. SIMPLY PUT, USC IS THE MOST OVERRATED TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. USC FANS REALIZE THIS, AND HOPE THAT THIS OFF SEASON MOVES ALONG QUICKLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT WILL SHUT ME UP.

[b]SCHEDULES COMPARED AND ANALYZED:[/b]

LSU proved it is #1 by beating top teams. USC went through the season playing almost exclusively #50-#60 teams. In fact, USC was voted #1 by the AP after playing just one top 25 team! And zero ranked teams on the road!!!

So despite LSU playing three of the worst teams, LSU's strength of schedule is better than USC's in every computer except one. A top 5 team should be able to #60 as easily as #117. Should the strength of schedule consider beating #117 and #1 as indicative as beating #60 and#61? Would you be more impressed if LSU had beaten #1 Oklahoma and #117 Louisiana Monroe or if LSU beat #60 North Texas and #61 Tulsa? LSU's SOS was hurt greatly because of its bottom half schedule (even so, LSU's SOS was tougher than USC's!). But a great team is defined by its ability to win the tough games, which LSU has done. Beating abunch of 45-75 teams is nice for your strength of schedule, but it does nothing to prove that your team deserves a shot at the national title.

Looking at USC's schedule, it's no wonder they looked impressive onpaper. They simply played inferior opponents.

[i]One ranked team during the regular season. Zero ranked teams on the road. As many losses to unranked teams as wins over ranked teams. [u]Embarrassing. [/i][/u]

[b]THE FINAL BCS STANDINGS AFTER THE BOWLS:[/b]

The computer polls actually post new rankings after the bowl games. And since SOS changes can still be determined, Rich Tellshow has come up with the final tally. ..........................W-L...Comp..CoachAP....Ave....QW....SOS.....Total 1 LSU.................13-1....1.00......1......2.....1.5.....1.2.....0.52.....2.82 2 USC.................12-1....1.83......2......1.....1.5.....0.4....0.80......4.73 3 Ohio State.......11-2....4.33......4......4.....4.0.....0.2....0.56.....10.29 4 Oklahoma.......12-2....5.00......3......3.....3.0......0......0.56.....10.56 ------------------------------------------------

[b]FINAL COMPUTER RANKINGS:[/b]

LSU wins 6 of 7 computer polls, most by SIGNIFICANT margins over USC. Only the NYTimes poll gave USC the #1 spot, by a VERY SLIGHT margin. LSU finishes 13th in the nation in SOS, ahead of OU who finishes 14thand USC finished 20th. LSU was mere fractions away from actuallyfinishing 10th. Remove the Western Illinois game, which should havenever been scheduled, and LSU finishes 8th. Computer poll results:

As you can see, there is as much distance between LSU and USC as there is between USC and the 3rd place team in Massey, Sagarin, Anderson-Hester and Peter Wolfe. These polls are handing #1 to LSU without a doubt. Billingsley is only close because teams are not considered even going into the season, he uses a preseason ranking and USC had a 30 point margin on LSU to start off with. Colley also gives LSU some breathing room ahead of USC. What can you say about the NY Times? Maryland #3 says it all. Computer polls tell the whole story. Humans do not get to meddle with it and show their bias like the AP/Coaches poll.

[b]LSU over USC BREAKDOWN:[/b]

1. LSU is 3-0 vs. teams ranked in the final AP Top Ten with wins over #3 Oklahoma and #7 Georgia (Twice). USC is 2-0 vs. AP Top Ten teams with wins over #6 Mich and #9 Wash State, a team that was comparable to an unranked LSU opponent Arkansas.

3. LSU has FIVE wins against teams that finished in the AP Top 25. USCl has TWO wins against teams that finished in the AP

4. The seventh-highest ranked team LSU defeated (30th-ranked Auburn) was the third-best team that USC played.

5. Losses compared:LSU's lone loss was the 24th ranked Florida. The Gators five losseswere ALL to top 15 teams (final rankings): Miami (5th), Tennessee(15th), Ole Miss (13th), Florida State (11th -- game refs stole from Florida) and Iowa (8th). In addition to beating LSU the Gators posted a win over No. 6 UGA and Arkansas (27th-RV). LSU lost the game due to turnovers. The game was close, and it took a late game fumble at the Florida 20 to seal the game for the Gators. Florida only outgained LSU by 20 yards.

USC's loss was to UNRANKED and SIX LOSS California. Cal's six losses were to Kansas State (13th) and Utah (21st) and UNRANKED Colorado State, Oregon State, UCLA and Oregon. Cal beat no other ranked teams. Cal dominated the game, and the only thing that kept USC in the game was Cal's turnovers (5 in total). Cal outgained USC by 100 yards.

7. SECCG > Rose BowlUSC plays a home game in the Rose Bowl against #4 Michigan (a team which also had a loss to an unranked opponent as well) and wins by 2 TDs. The media calls it a dominating victory and immediately declares USC national champs days before the polls come out.

LSU defeats #5 UGA in front of heavily UGA-partisan crowd in the Georgia Dome by 3 touchdowns. Good game says the media.

8. Common Opponents, Auburn and Arizona:

LSU defeated common opponent Auburn 31-7 after AU had won five straight including wins over then-Top Ten ranked teams in Arkansas and Tennessee. LSU sprinted out to a 21-0 lead early in the first quarter and cruised the rest of the way, taking its starters out of the game in the middle of the 3rd, up 31-0. USC defeated Auburn 23-0, but was forced to keep its starters in the entire game, up by only 2 TD's in the middle of the 4th quarter.

LSU defeated common opponent Arizona 59-13, scoring 38 first half points. The Trojans scored 35 first half points en route to a 45-0 win over the Wildcats. Pretty much a wash, until you realize that Arizona players and coaches said that LSU was a superior team to USC. Whose opinion matters more than those of the players and coaches who faced off against both teams?

9. SEC and PAC 10 Compared:

5 SEC teams finished the season ranked in the AP Top 25 compared to 2 for the PAC. The PAC went 4-2 in the bowls with the only wins over ranked teams by USC and Wash State. The SEC went 5-2 in bowls with wins by LSU over No. 3 OU, UGA over then No. 18 Purdue, Ole Miss over then No. 22 Oklahoma State. Florida lost to No 8 Iowa and Tennessee was upset by No. 22 Clemson. All 7 SEC bowl opponents were from BCS conferences, compared to 4 for the PAC. Only two Pac-10 won 10 or more games, compared to four in the SEC.

10. Bowls Compared

OU was much better than Michigan. The National Championship Game, even though it was in Louisiana, was probably a 60-40 split in favor of OU fans b/c OU fans, knowing that they would be in the Sugar Bowl for a long time, were able to buy tickets far in advance of LSU fans. The Rose Bowl was a good 80-20 split for USC. OU was playing for a national championship. Michigan was playing for a higher ranking. Both LSU and USC were equally dominant. The difference was that LSU was playing a far better team that had much more motivation to win in a non-LSU dominated atmosphere.

11. USC fans wanted to go to the Sugar Bowl.

All year long, the goal of all top teams was to make it to the Sugar Bowl. Everyone rightfully assumed that if you didn't make it to the BCS Championship Game, you couldn't be named a champion. USC fans know this quite well, and you can see in the following link to pictures the sentiment among USC fans following their last regular season game against Oregon State, where they clearly want to go to the Sugar, not Rose, Bowl. Beware of those revisionist USC fans who say they wanted the Rose over the Sugar.

http://public.fotki.com/LSUoverUSC/ The password is "lsu" in lowercase letters.

[b]REASONS TO QUESTION AND DISREGARD THE AP:[/b]

1. THE AP VOTERS WATCH VERY FEW OF THE GAMES. SATURDAY IS THEIR BIGGEST WORK DAY BECAUSE THEY ARE PREPARING THEIR SUNDAY STORIES. IF THEY COVER THE LOCAL COLLEGE FOOTBALL BEAT, THEY ARE GOING TO THE LOCAL TEAM'S GAME. THAT WILL CONSUME THEIR ENTIRE SATURDAY.

2. THE AP WAS STRIPPED OF ITS POWER IN GIVING A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN 1998 WHEN THE BCS WAS INSTITUTED. THE AP HAS SINCE WRITTEN ARTICLE AFTER ARTICLE ABOUT HOW THE BCS IS MESSED UP AND HOW THE OLD SYSTEM IS BETTER. THE AP SAW A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO DISCREDIT THE BCS IN 2003, AND USED THE POWER OF THE PRESS TO CAMPAIGN FOR A INFERIOR AND LESS DESERVING TEAM. THE AP WAS MOTIVATED TO DISCREDIT THE BCS AND NAME ITS OWN CHAMPION.

3. THE AP POLL IS INHERENTLY FLAWED:

a. FIRST, ITS STARTS WITH A PRESEASON POLL. A TEAM THAT STARTS AT #10 AND FINISHES 8-3 WILL BE RANKED AT THE END OF THE YEAR. A TEAM THAT STARTS UNRANKED AND FINISHES 8-3 LIKELY WILL NOT BE RANKED AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THERE SIMPLY IS TOO MUCH EMPHASIS PUT ON PRESEASON RANKINGS, AND THAT EMPHASIS CARRIES OVER THE ENTIRE SEASON.

b. SECOND, IT REWARDS TEAMS FOR LOSING EARLIER RATHER THAN LATER. SO WHAT THAT USC LOST A WEEK BEFORE LSU. WAS THAT A REASON FOR USC TO BE RANKED AHEAD OF LSU? HAD LSU LOST THE FIRST WEEK OF THE SEASON AND USC THE FIFTH TO LAST, WOULD LSU HAVE BEEN VOTED #1 BY THE AP? IF SO, THAT IS AN AWFULLY STUPID REASON!

Perhaps most importantly, [i]How can you win the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP WHEN YOU DON'T EARN A BERTH IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME?[/i] For the above reasons, USC did not deserve to be in the title game. But we're going to accept the biased, ignorant, and motivated to destroy the BCS opinion of the AP voters and its media friends? Miami OH had a more legitimate claim to the title than USC because at least they didn't agree to the BCS system as the way in which the two top teams would earn a spot in the title game to play for the championship. USC simply did not have the credentials in 2003 to earn a spot in the title game, muchless win the title.

Your claim that you must assume the AP champ the true national chamion in order to validate your championship season in whatever-year-it-was (all I remember is Woodson sored a thousand dang touchdowns against OSU that year) is totally dependant on the language you use.

If you state that UM won a 'split' national championship that year, then you do not have to elevate the AP over the Coache's poll. You can then use the same language to state that USC won a split national championship and therefore has(d) a nice two-peat going.

If, however, you insist that UM was the one and only true national champion that year (was it 97?), then your rationale is correct and you must therefore reject the winner of the Coach's poll as a false winner every year that the Coach's do not agree with the AP.

I've already refuted the contract portion of his argument on another thread. No need to repeat it here.

But Let us examine some of the rest of his so-called facts.1. Fact: LSU had a tougher sos than USC. No sos formula is specified and as such, this is a conclusion, not a fact. Several formulas for SOS exist and depending upon which you use, some showed USC's as tougher, others LSU. I can only assume the completely discredited and statistically invalid and dropped BCS sos is being used. And even in that one it all came down to one game, Notre Dame vs Syracuse. Thanks Irish for not showing up.

FACT: LSU HAD A LARGER MARGIN OF VICTORY THAN USCWell that is true. Of course what's not disclosed is that was 22.93 for LSU and 22.69 for USC, a difference of a whopping .24 points per game. Wooohoooo!!!! But wait. It gets better. How was that MOV earned? LSU got to play a 1aa team, plus 2 other teams the likes of which were so bad USC didn't get to play. Their Mov in those 3 games was 31.7Now let's look at MOV against top 10 teams. MOV against top 10 teamsUSC 20.50LSU 11.67How bout top 25? USC's is 20.5 againLSU's is 9.5 excluding their loss5.2 if you include it. So USC beat the truly fine teams by roughly double what LSU did and the entire source of LSU's MOV advantage, 1/4 point that it is, is completely running it up on 2 extra teams ranked sub 100 plus a 1aa team the crummy likes of which USC didn't get to play. And well uh, now you know the rest of the fact story.

Fact: LSU played 5 times the number of ranked teams .....

Can't do much with this because no poll specified nor which time of year rankings were taken.

However, looking at final rankings in the ap poll, LSU played 2 top 10 teams (one of them twice.), USC played 2 top 10 teams.LSU played 2 more teams in the 11-25 range. But one wonders if playing top ranked teams is so important, and MOV is so important, why is MOV against top teams neglected?

FACT: LSU'S ONLY LOSS WAS TO A RANKED TEAM. USC'S ONLY LOSS WAS TO UNRANKED, SIX LOSS CAL.

Wait a minute, did he say ranked team? Ranked by whom? Why the ap and coaches polls of course. So the same AP he's getting his rankings from, he rails against when they put USC #1. But again we seem to have a problem with full disclosure here. He would have you believe Cal was this lowly 6 loss team and Florida was this mighty ranked team. Florida finished 8-5 and was crushed by Iowa in their bowl. They finished ranked 24 in one poll and 25 in the other. Cal finished 8-6 and beat Virginia Tech in a shootout in their bowl. Yet there's supposed to be this chasm between the two. Furthermore, how did USC and LSU lose? Was it equally close? If so Advantage (slightly) to lsu. Florida was a better team than cal, but not by much with Zook at the helm. Trouble is, they aren't equally close. LSU was thoroughly punked at home by 12 points. USC lost in triple overtime on the road by 3 points. Which is worse now? Not so clear cut is it?

FACT: LSU HAD BETTER RESULTS AGAINST COMMON OPPONENTS, ARIZONA AND AUBURN, THAN USC.

Well true. BY ONE POINT EACH!!!!Congrats!!!

FACT: COMMON OPPONENTS COACHES AND PLAYERS (ARIZONA AND AUBURN AGAIN) SAID AFTER PLAYING BOTH TEAMS THAT LSU WAS BETTER.Way to cast the opinion of those quoted as a fact.

FACT: LSU PLAYED RANKED TEAMS ON THE ROAD.FACT: USC PLAYED ZERO RANKED TEAMS ON THE ROAD. CONSIDERING HOW IT DID AGAINST UNRANKED CAL ON THE ROAD, A LOSS, WE MIGHT HAVE SEEN SOME DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHO DESERVED TO BE IN THE SUGAR IN OU'S STEAD.And of course, the fact that LSU couldn't even defend its home turf is meaningless. :) So LSU beat better teams on the road than USC lost to. Well that means USC beat better teams at home than LSU lost to. Pick your poison. It becomes a wash.

IF USC HAD A CASE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.

It's been made at least 60 times. You just chose to ignore it and post the same drivel all over the place.

FACT: LSU WON TWO CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. USC WON ZERO. ITS BOWL WIN WAS OVER #6.

LMAO you could say USC won 9 championship games. Every game in the Pac10 and Big10 is a title game. No second chances. No special title games. You could also say they won the Rosebowl Championship. Bottom line is both teams won their conference and their bowl games. To say anything else and nitpick makes you look silly.

FACT: LSU HAD MORE WINS THAN USC.Wow. Congrats on that extra 1aa game you got to play. Talk about grasping for moral victories.

FACT: LSU PLAYED A PLAYOFF. LSU'S LAST FOUR GAMES WERE AGAINST #13, #27, #5, AND #3. LSU WON BY AN AVERAGE OF OVER 15 AGAINST EACH.FACT: There is no playoff. If there were a playoff, we wouldn't be having this argument. Again the poll isn't specified. But there is no 27 in either the ap or coaches. Furthermore, I've already gone over MOV vs ranked teams and USC's was roughly double that of LSU's.

FACT: LSU has 8 more players from 2003 than USC currently playing in the NFL

Uh. that's pretty meaningless considering the core of our 2003 national title won another and was 3 points away from a third and is just now moving into the pros.

Follow the MZone

Subscribe To

The MZone-slash-MichiganZone.net-slash-MichiganZone.blogspot.com is in no way affiliated with the University of Michigan and/or U-M football in any way. If you thought it was, frankly I'm surprised you know how to use a computer.